Colbert v. Sage Point Lender Services, LLC et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 1 Request For Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/21/2014. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01626 - LJO - JLT
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
) FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v.
)
SAGE POINT LENDER SERVICES, LLC, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ADRIENNE L. COLBERT,

17

Plaintiff Adrienne L. Colbert initiated this action by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed

18

in forma pauperis on October 17, 2014. (Docs. 1-2.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff includes a request for

19

a temporary injunction and stay of the foreclosure sale, which she alleges was scheduled to occur on

20

October 21, 2014. (Doc. 1 at 5.) She has not filed a formal motion for a temporary restraining order

21

or preliminary injunction. However, even assuming the Complaint should be treated as a motion,

22

Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 231 in

23

seeking injunctive relief.

24

The Court may only issue injunctive relief without notice to an adverse party if “specific facts

25

in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

26

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and” the movant

27

“certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (emphasis added). As a result, the Local Rules provide that “no temporary
1

1

restraining order shall be granted in the absence of actual notice to the affected party and/or counsel,

2

by telephone or other means, or a sufficient showing of efforts made to provide notice.” L.R. 231(a).

3

The Court “consider[s] whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary

4

injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for

5

temporary restraining order.” L.R. 231(b). Here, Plaintiff does not detail any efforts made to provide

6

notice to the defendants of the injunctive relief requested. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide an

7

explanation for the delay in seeking an injunction until the eve of the foreclosure sale, which weighs

8

against the entry of injunctive relief. See id.

9

Because Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, construed as a motion for a preliminary

10

injunction, fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

11

Local Rule 231, the request is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

SO ORDERED
Dated: October 21, 2014
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2